Réal Ménard

[Employment Equity Act, October 4th, 1995]

When the debate was adjourned, you were about to put the question on Motion No. 7, which happens to be mine. If there are still members who wish to speak to this motion, I would be glad to listen to them. I was just wondering when the vote would be.

[Employment Equity Act, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when we left off, you were about to put the question on the last motion that had been debated, which happened to be mine. Do you still intend to do that or are we proceeding with a new group of motions?

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-64, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 27, on page 10, with the following: b ) the preparation of the employer's employment equity plan.

(2) Where the employees are represented by a bargaining agent, the bargaining agent shall participate in a consultation under subsection (1).

(3) A consultation under subsection (1) is not a form of co-management.

(4) The employer and its employees' representatives must implement and revise the employment equity plan jointly."

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say that this is one of the best motions you will see during your career, and I am rather confident at this point that even the government will support it.

We spent a lot of time reviewing Bill C-64, which was referred to our committee at second reading. This motion essentially provides that employment equity must be based on a joint effort, so as to ensure that it is effective and that the prescribed objectives will be reflected in the workplace.

Any organization that has been successful in promoting employment equity has managed to do so because the employer's and the employees' representatives got together and agreed on certain objectives.

This amendment seeks to ensure that employees' representatives can participate in the preparation and implementation of the employment equity plan. As you know, the Bloc Quebecois is very much in favour of employment equity.

The problem that we found when we reviewed this bill, and the parliamentary secretary should pay attention since his support would be helpful, is that there is no clear provision to ensure that workers will be involved in the implementation of the plan.

The bill only includes a rather vague provision on the implementation of employment equity plans, and the parliamentary secretary cannot pretend to ignore the fact that the clause did not receive much support.

Indeed, the parliamentary secretary surely remembers that, when union officials appeared before the committee, they expressed a great deal of concern about clauses 14 and 15 dealing with the consultation process. Clause 15 refers to a consultation, but it does so in general terms; there is no mandatory or compulsory process.

It is very important to understand the purpose of the amendment, and I think the Reform Party will agree that an employment equity policy is not feasible without the consent of all parties within a company.

That is definitely the purpose of this amendment. Companies and workers even came to see us to compare notes. They told us that in the Canada Labour Code, a provision required the policy on sexual harassment to be posted. What kind of action or measures should be part of an employer's policy against sexual harassment? A number of unions came to see us and said that ideally, to promote employment equity each employee should receive the employment equity plan. The plan would be available in the company and be posted in public rooms and areas.

We can never stress enough the importance of consultation and consensus in achieving this goal. We were and still are afraid that if we as parliamentarians, if the House of Commons does not adopt this amendment, the bill will again suffer a degree of imbalance and there would be a definite bias towards the employer and a tendency to be less forthcoming to the representatives of the workers.

I may recall that this bill will make the Canadian Human Rights Commission responsible for monitoring employment equity. In case of violations of this legislation, the commission may establish an employment equity review tribunal.

This is a major innovation. Unfortunately, the tribunal will not include labour representatives. What also bothers us in this bill is that because there will be an employment equity review tribunal consisting of three people, there will be no right of appeal. This is quite a decision, and I see Mr. Speaker, that you share my reservations and that is your social conscience speaking out.

My point is that there are few instances under our justice system when there is no right of appeal. In most cases, whether we are talking about criminal law or an administrative tribunal, it is a foregone conclusion, and the hon. member for Lotbinière is aware of this, that the person who appears before a tribunal always has the possibility of launching an appeal.

In this case, there is a clear imbalance which the amendments of the Bloc Quebecois are meant to correct, and I am confident that the government majority will support this view. As for the Reform Party, knowing what they are like, I never felt very confident about their support.

It would be very interesting at this time, for continuation of the debate, if the parliamentary secretary would rise and agree with me that the bill would be improved by acceptance of the Bloc Quebecois amendments, which I would remind you would ensure that negotiating agents, if present in a company, would be involved in more than just the drafting process, through the employer's possibility of consulting them. These consultations however are often optional rather than mandatory.

With our amendments, there would be an obligation not only to consult the workers' representatives, the negotiating agents, but also to involve them in the implementation process. Consultation is equally important during implementation, when an employment equity plan has been agreed upon, as it often has to be lived with for two, three or four years. There may be staff turnover, but the basic objectives remain.

We on this side of the House are of the belief that the way to meet the objectives and to ensure that the plan is what both management and labour want is to require the employer's representative, who may make his views known in a tribunal specifically designed for that purpose, to remedy any existing imbalance, and to ensure not only that workers and their representatives are consulted on an optional basis, but rather that their participation in the implementation process is mandatory.

As you know, the implementation process is, in concrete terms, the way the objectives will be met after concrete agreement on an employment equity program is reached. This is something no legislator can put into the wording of a statute, because it is part of the internal dynamics of a company. It is a bit like a marriage contract. You may well say: "Who does he think he is, talking of marriage?"

But you would be wrong in that, Mr. Speaker, because I have many examples around me of what marriage is, and I know that marriage is a matter of trust. It is a matter of an undertaking

between two individuals, whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes, who have chosen to forge a link of trust. For employment equity to be a viable entity, for it to be realistic, there must be trust and understanding involving all parties concerned. And by all parties concerned I mean of course the negotiating agents, if present in the company, and the representatives of the employer.

I would be extremely disappointed-having invested a great deal of energy, working hard on the committee, as the government is well aware, the parliamentary secretary as well-extremely disappointed if ever these amendments were struck down. I must admit that my confidence in this government would be seriously compromised in future if that happened.

[Defence Industry Conversion, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In its red book, the government pledged to develop a defence industry conversion strategy. Two years later, we are still waiting for that strategy and for a review of the defence industry productivity program.

Are we to understand that the government did not follow through on its commitment because, instead of meeting the real needs of the industry, it is more concerned by the stand, on the referendum issue, taken by business leaders in that sector? This is shameful.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, as this is the first time I have an opportunity to rise in this House, I wish to welcome you back. You can, of course, appreciate that we have no intention of supporting the motions and amendments put forward by the Reform Party, and certainly not those aimed at exempting the private sector from the application of the Employment Equity Act.

With your permission, I would like to say that if we find ourselves with such amendments, it is undoubtedly because the Reform Party does not understand what employment equity is. What is being proposed through this bill and through various amendments is something that has been requested by a number of Canadians, especially those who submitted briefs to the Abella Commission and asked us to ensure not only that the Employment Equity Act has a greater impact on the private sector but also that it applies to the public service in general, which is what Bill C-64 will achieve.

We found it difficult to understand the position put forward by the Reform Party. How can they say on the one hand that the new jobs in Canada are created by the private sector, especially by small business, and claim on the other hand that the private sector should be exempted from employment equity?

Tabling a motion like the one put forward by our friends from the Reform Party is to consciously deny that greater equality in Canada and Quebec can be achieved through the private sector.

I would be tempted to say that it takes a whole lot of nerve to rise in this place and make this kind of remark.

What is most disturbing about such a position is the line we were given-and will keep hearing throughout the debate today I guess-about white people-those the Reform calls the silent majority-being discriminated against.

It will come as no surprise to you, Madam Speaker, to learn that the committee met with officials of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, who told us that 55 per cent of available jobs were being held by people with the traditional white, able-bodied and non native profile, while only 45 per cent of the workforce actually fits this description. This results in a situation where individuals who belong to what the Reform Party calls the silent majority are holding 55 per cent of the jobs, when in fact they represent 45 per cent of the workforce. And they would have us believe that there is reverse discrimination?

The truth of the matter is that, deep down, the Reform Party does not believe in employment equity. It does not believe that, on the job market as we know it today, certain people find it particularly difficult to find a place for themselves, and these are women, people with disabilities, native people and members of a visible minority. I think that the Reform Party should have the courage to say that it does not believe that these people are subject to any particular form of discrimination and that it is our duty to ensure that the four classes of persons referred to in this bill can find a place not available to them at present.

When we look at statistics, there is cause for rejoicing but also cause for concern. On the bright side-and I am sure this will please the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health-the labour force attachment of women did increase. You can see for yourself, statistics all say the same thing.

This is also true, to a lesser extent, of people with disabilities, who probably account for seven or eight per cent of the workforce, while making up 15 per cent of the overall population.

If you look at the situation of aboriginal peoples and members of visible minorities, you see that very little progress was made since 1986, when the act was first implemented. There are still enormous problems which, it must be recognized, are often related to culture. However, the fact remains that there are groups which are significantly under-represented in the workforce, particularly aboriginal and disabled people, as well as members of visible minorities.

We know, of course, what the Reform Party thinks of aboriginal peoples, and we will get back to that issue later on during the debate.

The Bloc supports this bill and is particularly pleased that it also applies to the public service. Indeed, it was somewhat of a paradox to ask private sector employers to make efforts and produce annual reports, to meet objectives and related deadlines, without asking the public service to meet the same objectives and expectations. That approach was rather questionable. So, we are pleased to see that the government will impose the same employment equity objective to 300 crown corporations and to all the departments, through Treasury Board.

We are not saying that the bill cannot be improved; in fact, we will discuss that issue when we look at the motions proposed by the Bloc. We have a number of concerns, particularly as regards the establishment of employment equity review tribunals.

We were hoping that the bill would include provisions providing for the establishment of an employment equity review tribunal on the basis of the actual representation of the designated groups.

As regards this issue, it must be said that the government was particularly narrow minded and stubborn in its approach, from the very beginning.

Members have an opportunity to participate in the debate today, and I hope that Reform members will display the dignity and open mindedness that should guide every parliamentarian.

[Recognition Of Same Sex Spouses, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a tradition in this House allowing the sponsor to close the debate. If I may I would therefore request the consent of the House to make use of that entitlement, two minutes more.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-91 and emphasize the very positive work done by the critic of the Bloc Quebecois on this matter, the member for Trois-Rivières, who, as you know, has extensive experience in financial assistance to small business.

I think it is worthwhile to repeat what others have already said, that such a bill worries the Bloc. We do not understand how the Minister of Industry could waste his time reviewing the Federal Business Development Bank, since this institution was and still is an instrument much appreciated by small business.

We are convinced that, if the Minister of Industry is really hard-pressed for work, he could have reviewed the assistance programs for the defence industries, with some help from the secretary of state for science, research and development.

I see that the secretary of state is eager to participate in the debate, whether directly or indirectly. Essentially, we are concerned about the fact that this bill is sanctioning a concrete and immediate interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction, that is regional development.

Madam Speaker, you certainly know that Quebec has been demanding that regional development be recognized as a provincial jurisdiction, in accordance with the constitution, since 1974-in fact probably since 1968, but at least since 1974, when the Industrial Development Bank was established. That was the first real interference by the federal government.

I could very easily demonstrate that, certainly as far back as 1974, the federal government has used regional development as a pretext to meddle in a lot of areas that are not under its jurisdiction.

As for ERDAs, or Economic and Regional Development Agreements, why is it that we are debating in June 1995 a bill put forward by the Minister of Industry, when he did not even deign to negotiate and sign ERDAs? Why is the government making this a priority, but did not feel concerned and compelled to get involved in the renewal of these agreements? One can only wonder.

In fact, this needs to be said. Our friends opposite are consistent in their ways; they are using regional development as an excuse to move into areas over which they have no jurisdiction under the constitution. That is what this interest in regional development and ERDAs is all about. Let me back this up with a few facts and figures.

The second batch of ERDAs, those covering the 1984-94 period-I think the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry should listen, because even if he is from Toronto, he could learn a thing or two-were on cultural products, fisheries, transportation and tourism. Can you think of an area that is more obviously and explicitly a provincial responsibility than tourism? Regional development was used to step into areas of jurisdiction not assigned to the federal government.

That is the kind of trick that should make us see clearly that the federal government will never play fair and square at the game of federalism and abide by sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act. It had been amply demonstrated that this many armed, one track and rule bending government is trying to encroach on areas of jurisdiction that are not its own.

It must be said that the Federal Business Development Bank, in the present state of affairs and because of the way it operates, is something small and medium size businesses in Quebec appreciate because it had a well-defined mandate limited to providing last resort assistance. I think that every member of this House has had the chance at one time or another to deal with officials of the Federal Business Development Bank. I know that often, when as an MP I had occasion to refer people to the FBDB, it was because traditional institutions such as chartered banks had refused to help. As stated in its enabling legislation, the FBDB was a last resort lending institution.

Why review the mandate of the Federal Business Development Bank? At whose request? Why is this a government priority when we have so many other fish to fry, particularly I might add in the area of science and technology, about which the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology published a report? I do hope we will get to discuss it in this House, as it would provide me with an opportunity to share views with my good friend, the parliamentary secretary. Over the weekend I read the report, which was tabled recently and found it quite enlightening.

This report of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology talks about growth, and wisdom, and it proposes four courses of action, but it gives no real indication that this government wants to work to make science and technology a priority. It would have been much more useful for the government to work toward that goal than to review the Federal Business Development Bank Act that no one, in the end, wished to review.

Once again, we must keep in mind that the Federal Bank, established in 1974, was appreciated, and still is, by small and medium size businesses in Quebec and perhaps even in Canada, because it offered consulting services, financial services which were mostly self-financed. For no apparent reason, the Federal Business Development Bank, under a new name, is being asked, as my colleague for Trois-Rivières pointed out, to become a rather traditional lending institutional and to compete with existing institutions. I know that some witnesses raised this as a concern before the Committee on Industry. We fail to understand why the government is bent on stiffer competition in an area that did not need it.

There is cause for concern here, and I think that we will never give enough attention to the real threats for Quebec which are included in this bill, especially under clauses 20 and 21. Are you aware of the Liberals' old tactic? The bill will allow the new bank to do business with organizations or persons directly, over the head of the Quebec government. This is the same old unhealthy, obsolete tactic of divide and conquer, and it fools nobody.

They want to divide and conquer by making funds available. The government whip is a well informed man generally, but obviously, his somewhat Canadian naïvety can sometimes lead him to support principles that are unhealthy for Quebec. As we know, under clause 20, the bank will be allowed to do business directly with organizations or persons, without taking into account the will of the Quebec government.

I know the government whip would surely not have wanted the official opposition to support such principles that obviously-and this cannot be said too often-are very disrespectful to Canadian federalism.

As I have stated, Madam Speaker-and I will conclude with that since you indicate that my time is up-if the government is really serious about regional development, it should transfer tax points or make direct payments to the Quebec government, because we have plenty of projects.

[Defence Industry, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should not concern himself with my ideas. I am more worried about his.

After attacking at the Quebec pharmaceutical industry, the minister is now going after the aerospace industry by cutting DIPP. Is this the sort of federalism being offered to Quebec, where Ottawa continually threatens high tech industry in Quebec, offering only unemployment and technological delay in exchange?

[Defence Industry, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

A study done by the defence industry research group reveals that Quebec would be particularly affected by cuts to the defence industry production program, DIPP. This study concluded that 60 per cent of DIPP's funding in Quebec would be cut, that is, $50 million, and so research and development would drop by $150 million.

Will the minister admit that he is on the wrong track in cutting funds to DIPP, when he knows very well that, for every dollar the government puts into this program, the industry puts in three, and jobs in high tech industries like aerospace are directly related to contributions to the program?

[Culture, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, has the heritage minister been relieved of his duties or has he resigned from his position without informing the public and this House? There are several indications that this might be the case.

The minister was unable to attend the joint convention of the Canadian Museums Association and the Société des musées québécois at a time when the museums are waiting to hear about federal museum policy. For reasons that are a complete mystery, he did not delegate a replacement.

The cultural community is worried and offended by this silence on the part of the federal government. As far as culture at the federal level is concerned, it is the policy of the empty chair. Left vacant by a minister in name only, this chair is now occupied by the Minister for International Trade when it comes to film distribution, and by the Minister of Industry in the case of orders with respect to satellite broadcasting.

It is high time that the heritage minister handed the job over to someone really able to stand up for cultural issues. When will he be giving up his limousine?